Comments by "xybersurfer" (@xybersurfer) on "Turing u0026 The Halting Problem - Computerphile" video.

  1. Nixitur i'm not sure i agree. the question is now: - did you prove that H is false? - or rather that the implication formula H → H+ you proposed is false? the statement ¬H+ → ¬H makes it very clear, that there will be disagreement if someone does not agree the original implication formula.
    1
  2. but H → H+ also holds when: H does not exist and H+ does not exist. according to the H → H+ = ¬H ∨ H+
    1
  3. but, i am saying that the implication is wrong. because your formula still holds when H does not exist and H+ does not. your formula holds as soon as H does not exist. there is not even any point in checking whether H+ exists
    1
  4. FernieCanto yes, as said. take: - H does not exist (H = false) - H+ exist (H+ = true) clearly this should not possible because H+ depends on H but when you fill them into the formula H → H+ = ¬H ∨ H+ = ¬false ∨ true = true ∨ true = true it says it's true
    1
  5. FernieCanto yeah it seems that there are some things i don't understand yet. i've struggled a bit with understanding the halting problem. as a student i have reproduced the proof but i never really felt like i understood it. i think i will re-watch the video a couple of times.
    1
  6. Nixitur i don't get how you can make such a strong claim
    1
  7. watcherFox why would an input need another input? we aren't confined to only using H or H+ as inputs.
    1